from the congress-wakes-up dept

Right after the Presidential election last week, Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala penned an opinion piece suggesting that one way the Republicans could "reset", and actually attract the youth vote, would be to become the party of copyright reform. We had actually wondered if that was going to happen back during the SOPA fight, when it was the Republicans who bailed on the bill, while most of those who kept supporting it were Democrats. Since then, however, there hadn't been much movement. Until now. Late on Friday, the Republican Study Committee, which is the caucus for the House Republicans, released an amazing document debunking various myths about copyright law and suggesting key reforms.

If you're used to Congress not understanding copyright, prepare to be surprised. It's clear, thorough and detailed about just how problematic copyright has become and why it needs to change. To give you a sense of where the document heads, note the final line:

Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets -- rather it destroys entire markets.

There is a lot in this document, and we can't go through it all, but I highly recommend reading through it. The three "myths" it attacks are:

That the purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator. No, it correctly notes, it's about benefiting the public:

Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” In today’s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation.

This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators “deserve” or are “entitled to” by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights.

That copyright is a representation of free market capitalization. The paper properly notes that the reality is the exact opposite:

Copyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez faire capitalism. Under the current system of copyright, producers of content are entitled to a guaranteed, government instituted, government subsidized content-monopoly.

That the current copyright regime leads to the greatest level of innovation and productivity. That makes no sense at all, the paper says:

Today’s legal regime of copyright law is seen by many as a form of corporate welfare that hurts innovation and hurts the consumer. It is a system that picks winners and losers, and the losers are new industries that could generate new wealth and added value. We frankly may have no idea how it actually hurts innovation, because we don’t know what isn’t able to be produced as a result of our current system.

From there, it goes on to look at some of the specific harms of today's copyright law, including harming remix culture and a lot of commercial activity around it, that it "hampers scientific inquiry," discouraging value added industries and others.

Finally, it puts forth suggestions for copyright reform that go way, way, way beyond anything we've seen legitimately discussed in Congress, ever. Below I just show some snippets from the recommendations, so go read the full thing.

Statutory Damages Reform:

Copyright infringement has statutory damages, which most copyright holders can and do use in litigation (rather than having to prove actual damages). The government sets a range – which is $750 to $30,000 per infringement – but that goes up to $150,000 if the infringement is "willful." Evidence suggests that the content holder almost always claims that it is willful. This fine is per infringement. Those rates might have made sense in commercial settings (though even then they arguably seemed high), but in a world where everyone copies stuff at home all the time, the idea that your iPod could make you liable for a billion dollars in damages is excessive.

Expand Fair Use:

Right now, it's somewhat arbitrary as to what is legally fair use based upon judicially created categories. One example: parodies are considered protected by fair use but satire is not. There's an excellent book (and a shorter paper) called Infringement Nation that details how things you do every single day are infringing and leave every single person liable for billions in damages each year (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151).

Punish false copyright claims:

Because there is minimal or nearly non-existent punishment for bogus copyright claims today, false takedown requests are common and have a chilling effect upon legitimate speech. While those filing a takedown request have to swear on the threat of perjury, that swearing is only in regard to whether the work is theirs but not whether the work is actually infringing. The court has said that their needs to be “subjective bad faith” in order to be sanctioned for false takedown requests. This often leads to de facto censorship.

Heavily limit the terms for copyright, and create disincentives for renewal:

Current public policy should create a disincentive for companies to continue their copyright indefinitely because of the negative externalities explained in this paper. Unlike many forms of government revenue, generating revenue by disincentivizing activities with negative externalities is one way for the government to pay for its operations. This is a far superior way for the government to generate revenue rather than having a tax system that disincetivizes work.

It goes on to suggest a sliding scale for copyright renewal, after a free initial term of 12 years. The fee for renewal would be a percentage of revenue from the work, and that percentage increases with each additional renewal term. Under such a system, those who are still exploiting the copyright can continue to hold one, but for most, where there is greater benefit to have the work in the public domain, the work goes into the public domain.

This document really is a watershed moment. Even if it does not lead to any actual legislation, just the fact that some in Congress are discussing how copyright has gone way too far and even looking at suggestions that focus on what benefits the public the most is a huge step forward from what we've come to expect. In many ways, this is the next logical step after the completion of the SOPA fight. Rather than just fighting bad policy, it's time for Congress to recognize that existing copyright law is bad policy and now is the time to fix it. It comes as a surprise, but kudos to the Republican Study Committee -- and specifically Derek Khanna, the policy staffer who wrote the document -- for stepping up and saying what needed to be said, but which too many in Congress had been afraid to say for fear of how the entertainment industry lobbyists would react.

Re: Dear Shills

I want to start jumping up and down and scream, "You're right! Yes!" However, we have not heard from the Democrats yet.
The Democrats may decide this would be a good topic to differentiate themselves from the Republicans, talk about creators rights and the rights of artists, and stall out anything good for another 2-4 years at least. Don't forget, the VP bumps nasties with Hollywood so often he's on a penicillin drip.
All this would mean is that next election, I switch over and vote Republican. Not like I haven't done it before.

Re:

No, this is just evidence even you internet people will find hard to ignore, that the Democrats aren't the fucking magic fairy dust sprinkled heroes you've been pretending; Obama and his party stand for one thing, and one thing alone: totalitarian oppression.

Wow, just Wow...

As a usual enemy of anything the Republicans suggest, I have to admit they are dead right on this. Too bad they are so very wrong on almost everything else. I must admit I have a touch of cynicism about their motives. Could there be a touch of populist mongering here? Anyway at least the direction is good. And I can think of at least one Democratic Senator who will agree with them, indeed who's been blazing the trail for a while now.

I've never thought that Congress didn't understand copyright--they'd have to be idiots not to. But they also have an understanding of how to get campaign contributions--give the biggest contributers what they want to get the biggest contributions. What they are just beginning to understand is that copyright and IP in general are becoming a big issue among the young voters--because they are also beginning to understand that all the campaign contributions in the world won't do squat to get you elected if no-one votes for you.

Not Entirely Unpredictable

It's pretty clear after this election that the republican party's only chance of remaining relevant is to abandon (or at least heavily one down) its religious fundamental policies and focus more on economic conservatism. A move towards the libertarian party by the republicans will keep them politically competitive in the next few decades, and copyright is one of those areas that will help them identify with younger, more "liberal" voters.

Anyway, this is certainly a happy development, and I'm kind of surprised it took this long. I've been sorely disappointed by the Dems' pandering to the Hollywood lobby on issues of copyright. I was surprised when, under Republican-led Congresses, the Republicans let the content industries be so successful in the pivot to property rights rhetoric.

Property ownership is much more clearly at stake with one's ownership of one's computer, and copyright has gotten to the ridiculous point that I can effectively be accused of breaking and entering my own computer. For a party that clings so strongly to the importance of property ("real" or chattels), copyright-as-property is best viewed skeptically, to say the least.

They often say the first step is admitting you have a problem.

This is excellent stuff. They've finally put the subject down on the table. It is a sign of revolutionary progress. It just goes to show that it can happen on the right as well as the left. I highly, highly doubt that this snowball will stop rolling downhill.

This is not like the war on drugs where culturally, it is difficult to portray the victims of the war as just that: victims. And that is due to the victims being drug users who may or may not bring their addictions upon themselves. There is still an imbalance here even in spite of the vast majority of people who agree that the war on drugs is unjust, because the drug "stigma" blocks out the vital step of really rattling the walls: creating images of suffering for the public to behold is not as easy when there's an element of prejudice towards your typical heroin user.

Copyright laws on the other hand have ended up embedding a lot of clear revolutionary images in the minds of it's critics: a new generation of young people who hate the laws and are aware of the viral resistance against SOPA, combined with the standardising of internet access as a human right. The clarity of the enemy and the victim is beyond doubt.

Lenin's definition of a revolutionary situation was "when the old order cannot go on in the new way, and the people do not want it to go on in the new way." It seems very, very fitting right now.

And to top it all off, the irrationality of the copyright lobbyists is getting the better of them: trying to criminalise reselling of MP3 files, patenting software to read head counts presumably for admission charges, bankrupting those who've done nothing more than the equivalent of letting their friends borrow their DVDs. I'm just waiting for them to do try and shut down deviantArt, next. Don't be tempted to say "they wouldn't be that stupid", irrationality makes oppression self defeating: matter of historic principle. These things do happen.

It's just one Ceaușescu moment after another with the copyright lobbyists. It means it's over. And it's just a matter of time.

It will piss people off if this gets thrown off the table due to lobbying, which in turn will annoy the Republicans who really need votes right now which in turn will start to put pressure on the Democrats to agree in order to take back those votes. Forward is the only direction right now.

haha

me thinks what i said was true , let em have all these laws and show for a fact that copyrights are damaging to innovation and free markets....

The usa is done for. Your laws both copyrights and patents push people to other lands. I get it too. NOW that you stuffed your bullshit on all the est of the world you drop copyright terms inside USA and bone everyone right....

Re:

Re: Re:

That's right, apply the false dichotomy thinking again.

This is indeed evidence that the Democrats aren't heroes. However, this is evidence of what many of us have thought all along, that all partisan sides have some good positions and some bad positions and it's all about picking the side that averages out to be less worse than the other side. And these averages will fluctuate depending on particular candidates and platforms.

The best possible scenario in a broken system such as we have is to play all of the evils against each other. Corporations vs. the government. Republicans vs. the Democrats. The wealthy against the wealthy. The lawyers against the politicians.

If the populace can't free itself without the moral compromise of violent revolution, the only other option is to wield leverage where you can.

This stance doesn't make these particular Republicans saints and it certainly doesn't make up for idiots like Orrin "remotely destroy pirate computers" Hatch or Ted "series of tubes" Stevens.

But this is an opportunity to unsettle the Democrats and make them rethink their positions on intellectual property law.

Don't be gullible enough to believe that this is anything other than Republicans looking for weaknesses in order to undermine the recent Democrat victories. They'd swing the other way if it benefited them. This is cold and calculated.

I've voted straight Democrat in the last 4 elections ('06, '08, '10, and '12) and the last Republican I voted for was Arlen Specter... who changed parties to the Democrats.

But I'd consider voting for a Republican again if this became part of the platform. (And if they shift way left on abortion, gay rights, immigration, unions, budgets... heck, this and 3 out of 5 of those.)

One problem: The 12 year term length, while I love it, is currently constrained by the Berne Convention, which requires "life + 50". But we could absolutely drop down to that from our current "life + 70". (And I'm fuzzy on the details, but I think we could drop works-for-hire down to a flat 50?)

I'd switch

Really if Republicans just want to be "not Democrats," they should go this way. I don't want to be a Democrat any more either, it's just that Republicans suck even harder. If they start differentiating themselves by sucking less than Democrats, I'd gladly join them. This would be a great start. You have an opportunity, Republicans! You will also have to drop the fringe religious extremism and woman-hating, but I bet you can do it. Just be less evil than Democrats, rather than more.

After the campaign that just ran, I have a hard time believing anything like this coming out from our politicians. I tend to think this is just a play for more money by scaring the entertainment moguls into paying up the other side too.

Not a day goes by here at Techdirt that the follies of copyright are presented day after day. The pendulum has swung way too far in favor of the majors and it is long over due to swing the other way. A first statement recognizing this goes a long ways to stating they are aware that it has become a problem. I seriously doubt anything will be done on this level now.

If you listen closely you can probably hear lobbyists running to a quiet space to quickly call the head office saying we need lots of money for payoffs.

With the grid lock going on in congress this has about as much chance getting through as the budget has in the past, which is near nil. Still I would love to be close enough to hear the pucker of sucked up lips in the main offices after reading this. It's gotta be a killer of a show.

Re: Dear Shills

this is slaptastic... google buys a resume building intern who wanted joe the plumber to run for congress and dresses like american psycho... I bet he loves phil collins, no seriously, I bet he is IN LOVE with Phil Collins...

Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

"Recently, I've had a chance to read letters from award winning writers and artists whose livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy. One letter that stuck out for me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to 'be a golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon.' This just isn't right."

Re: Re: Re:

so the republicans will attract the youth vote attempting to destroy the lives of artists, musicians, creators, in addition to attempting to destroy the lives of women, minorities, gays, and non-christians...

Re:

Re: Re: Dear Shills

Hurricane head! The spit business not doing so well lately? Why don't you go over to Phil and help him, you know, use his recording studio instead of being a whiner. At some point you're going to bore a hole through Lowery's shoes with your constant licking.

Re: I'd switch

It's exactly because of BS like this is why I'm against the party system. Why the hell should ballots be like a ordering fastfood from a drive through? No matter what state you're in, you can be sure the same social issues come bundled like a combo meal. If you want the grilled chicken, you have get jalapeno sauce and a side of mac & cheese. If you wanted fries, you'll have to vote Republican and get the fish instead. When it comes time to order, you get attached with ads from the Republican brand saying that the Democrat chicken isn't really organic and Democrat brand saying the Republican fried fish will cause diabetes. And heaven forbid if a local franchise wants to serve something that isn't on the party menu!

Wouldn't just be better if every candidate was independent and had to get customers entirely by how well they serve?

they love the smell of their own farts...

" Even if it does not lead to any actual legislation, just the fact that some in Congress are discussing how..."

don't worry, there's no threat of this leading to anything, much less any "actual legislation" - and when "some in congress" happens to be a google pocket pet intern grandstanding for attention... uhm well... just keep bending and sniffing boys...

Re:

One problem: The 12 year term length, while I love it, is currently constrained by the Berne Convention, which requires "life + 50". But we could absolutely drop down to that from our current "life + 70". (And I'm fuzzy on the details, but I think we could drop works-for-hire down to a flat 50?)

This is one reason why the above proposal is clever. Depending on the wording it does NOT necessarily violate Berne. Why? Because it's not actually making copyright term less than Berne... it's just *changing the fee structure* such that some *choose* not to keep their copyrights to the Berne length. That can still be legitimate under Berne. The total *possible* term can be above the Berne threshold, but there are options (and incentives) to opt out earlier.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

You know, the real reason that unnamed artist couldn't collect royalties is probably because the RIAA screwed him out of them. They won't even share cash amongst their supposedly harmed clients whenever they actually manage to win a million dollar lawsuit against a file sharer.

Re: Sense?! O.o

I dunno. It seems more of a coincidence because the Republicans have traditionally been anti-regulation centric anyway, which is the same philosophy that got us into the Great Recession in the first place. Why the hell did it take them so long to find a worthwhile subject like copyright overreach that perfectly fits with their platform in the first place?

Democrats and Republicans represent two extremes, either of which is nothing but destructive on its own, so perhaps they ought to be thought of as tools for the voting public to use. In theory, the Republicans ought to be good for pruning the choking weed that is the copyright system while the Democrats ought to be good for getting Fox News off the air.

Quite a Turnabout

When the US set up puppet regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade or so back, the Republicans made sure that those had copyright laws that Sonny Bono could live with (or not). Now that their campaign insists that the government cannot create wealth, good to see some of them ready to curtail this aspect of government-created assetocracy.

Re: Dear Shills

You just had to go and draw them out, didn't you? >/ Now we've got this Hurricane Head guy having a conniption the likes of which I haven't seen since Ghetsis's breakdown in Pokemon Black and White. Do you know how disturbing it is to watch a person degenerate as the only world they knew falls apart before their eyes?

Hollywood and music back Obama heavily. Hollywood depend on Obama administration to prevent further eroding of business models. Republicans attack Hollywood revenue streams. As a unplanned side effect the public wins.

Re: Re: Wow, just Wow...

No-one give a fuck about Joe, no-one is even going to read your out of date article about him so shut up about it.

You seem to hate the idea of critically assessing laws to see if they're fit for purpose. Is this because you have a vested interest in exceptionally long copyright terms or because your boss told you to?

This has long been Democrats biggest weak point, and it is a surprise to see it take so long before Republicans caught up to it. Hollywood is one of the Democrats biggest donors, so they don't risk going against Hollywood, but the internet is the biggest concern of much of the under 30 crowd, a current democratic stronghold.

That said, Republicans do lose on the internet issue as soon as they get back to talking about porn on the internet, because while the under 30 crowd isn't a fan of copyright laws, they sure as hell aren't fans of the censorship arguments that the far right throws out on occasion either.

Re: they love the smell of their own farts...

Re: Re: I'd switch

While yes, I'd agree that the American two party system isn't working particulary well. I wouldn't neccesarily agree that forbidding parties entirely would improve things. in my opinion you'd be trading one problem;
- Either party doesn't have to be particulary good to win, they just have to be less terrible than the opposition.
And you'd be back to the entire reason that a party system began in the first place;
- Efficiency. It would be much harder to get things done and it'd be easier for bad bills(?) to get through since a politican only have so much time and can only focus on a few issues.
If I were to choose then I'd go with a west european style where you, unlike the US, don't have a 'winner takes it all' situation. Instead you have somewhere between 6 and 11-ish parties and there's much more competition for voters between the parties. I'm not saying that system is good but of the three I'd say it's the best. Also I wouldn't be suprised if someone came up with a new system of governance since our current systems have shown it's flaws as of late.

Under the current system, most creators sign their rights away (which should be non-transferrable in the first place) to "creators" such as BMG Sony, NBCUniversal and NewsCorp. Who, y'know, don't come up with the ideas.

Hope

I am truly shocked by what I read. Yes copyright in the USA does have some major issues but I am very happy to see that at least one person listens and understands.

I would say there is hope that many of those changes could be done but dropping the copyright term down to 12 years with renewal needed can only be a global event.

Reading this even bring tears to my eyes when it was back in 1997 when I first learned how the current system was broken under monopolies and how copyright was bad for society. Back then you could not even dream of change, could not expect to see change in your life time, or even the lives of your children. Back then the few pirates simply wanted more choice then what they were allowed and to see things beyond their door.

I am quite amazed how far we have come and so quickly. A few thousand people turned into millions and then tens and hundreds of millions. Sure most of those people do not understand the problems and just live out the new world but a noticeable percentage have learned. Indeed there are more people reading these technology pages than their are for politics in general. People read the news and they are concerned, annoyed and even angry.

You might say fairly that this document may go nowhere quickly but the fact this is being read in the House now is truly shocking. Still the world has much changed in recent years and one day the law does need to catch up.

Well if Congress runs with that ball they would make a whole load of voters very happy. This is a first but it will not be a last.

Re:

It is true that the Democrats are paid the most but the Republicans are not far behind.

This is really the wrong way to look it when Hollywood simply funds the people who are most active on pro-copyright. So there are just more outspoken pro-copyright members on the Democratic side. Then that is sure headed by Obama and Biden.

Re: Re:

In one way this could put a lot of pressure on congress as it would be a position if they stick to it that could swing the next votes towards the Republicans. And that is something I never thought I would ever suggest or say could happen in these days of hatred spewing from the Republican mouths.

Hopefully the Republicans put a lot of effort into copyright change in the right direction and the Dem's are forced to make changes that really do benefit the citizens and not the copyright monopolists.

Re:

I dont know if it is a partisan issue or not or if a dem will stand up for there beliefs or be held back from doing so by the party. If anything there were a few Dems calling for Sopa to be cancelled and for there to be copyright reform in the way we would all like to see it. I for one think that the republicans could regain a tiny little bit of respect back, but they honestly need to get rid of the minority that is just bat-shit insane.

And here I was thinking that copyright was intended to protect the artists, amazing how one can get caught up in the propaganda spread around the internet. Time to do some real investigating into what the copyright laws actually say.

Re:

If anything the Berne convention could be changed to reflect the facts and not just the desire of the monopolists. This could if it really does go forward be one of the actions that encourage change we all realise must happen to encourage growth of the technology sphere and to give the citizens the rights that have been taken away from them.

'too many in Congress had been afraid to say for fear of how the entertainment industry lobbyists would react.'

and too many in Congress afraid that they would lose the 'little brown envelopes' that are delivered in exchange for voting for what the entertainment industries want. some of what those industries want is what is happening atm, but as far as they are concerned is nowhere near enough.i must admit i am quite shocked at what i have just read. there is so much truth in it's contents, so much that says what should have been happening for many years when actually the opposite is happening. it is exactly why nothing will ever come of it. the problem there is that knowing what needs to happen, saying what needs to happen but doing nothing or being allowed to do nothing to change anything means the effort is completely wasted.

Re:

The one thing that people misunderstand is that if they want the republicans can use this as a part of an agreement to pass other policy. If they do manage to do it good for them, then I think they need to just get rid of the loony side of there party and they could become relevant again, who would have thought that the republican party losing so much ground could be good for the citizens in more than just the results of the elections, maybe the republicans will listen to the citizens a little more and give some of the things we all desire to get back into the game.

Re: Re: Re: Dear Shills

Here's the stupid thing

Why did the Republicans wait until now, after the Presidential race, to push for copyright reform?

If they ran with this, as well as took a stand against things like invasive "cybercrime" spying, creating real incentives to keep companies from outsourcing, tax the large corps like GE and super-wealthy, protect medicare and social security, end the wars and significant cuts to spending, they would've DESTROYED Obama in the race to the White House, not to mention score a Senate majority. (Yes, that was a massive run-on sentence.)

Re:

But it gives the public even more of a reason to hate Hollywood and support there competition. It gives people the ideas that things are not as they should be and that there needs to be positive change in the interest of the people not the studios.

At least there is a conversation going on and this is something that has not ever happened before, well not so clearly and blatantly calling Hollywood out for there actions by a government figure.

Hopefully it could lead to more and more people deciding to boycott or just not buy content from Hollywood, which in itself would encourage them to change the laws drastically.

Wow. I have my reasons I would never vote Republican, but I give them kudos on this. Here's hoping the Dems recognize the play for the youth vote and try to outflank them so we can get both parties in on the act.

It's too early to say that one such study committee document means the entire party will get serious about changing copyright reform.

Documents like this are often written just to appease some demographic group, but have no real binding power. Such as the party platforms written and passed at the presidential conventions, the base may make a big deal out of it, but the public doesn't care, neither do the politicians that are elected from those parties.

Still, if republicans actually got really serious about taking this issue up, then that would be a welcome change. I disagree with republicans on far too many other issues (such as social issues) to ever vote for them, but they could still win my younger brother's vote over a change like this, as he has a negative view of both parties, despite voting for Obama.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"so the republicans will attract the youth vote attempting to destroy the lives of artists, musicians, creators, in addition to attempting to destroy the lives of women, minorities, gays, and non-christians..."

LOL. Bush Jr. held office for eight years, four with a Republican majority, yet Roe vs Wade wasn't overturned, gay people were still gay, and non-Christians' lives weren't "destroyed," so you're just spewing venom for the sake of pushing an agenda.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the government banned abortion and homosexuality. Guess what? People would still do those things anyway.

As far as "musicians' livelihoods," it shouldn't be the government's job to offer them a protection racket, particularly one as excessive and overbearing (more wasteful spending...) as the one currently employed. Why don't you go take your grievances up with the extortionists and money-grubbing corporates responsible for rooking the artists in the first place?

By the way, did you ever stop and think that perhaps the real reason why so many artists are struggling is because they're either not that good or the market is oversaturated? What, do you just sit around and expect for people to fix all your problems?

Re: just shows again how out of touch republicans really are

Hi Hurricane Head, my name is Cory of PC, short for an extremely long name, and I would like to say: if you find politics funny, then please consort with the nearest psychologist. I'm fairly sure there's something wrong with that very fragile mind of yours.

Re: Re: Not Entirely Unpredictable

You have to keep your eye on the ball: Super PACs, fund-raisers, campaign contributors, et al. Of course if they're running with copyright reform as one of their strategies, you wouldn't expect copyright maximalists to be pouring money into their pot.

Re: Re:

Actually it's a start. Sure not all of them lost their seats, but with two gone does mean something. And sure it's not like it's going to change a whole lot and it could bring in more people with the same ideals and thoughts, but it's a step closer in helping Congress out of its current dilemma.

Re:

Too late?

I associate the GOP so strongly with bigotry, misogyny, christian fundamentalist willful ignorance, and Fox News, that would have a hard time voting for one of their candidates.

I suppose on the one hand that's OK since being on the high side of 30 I'm not the demographic they are looking for here of course. On the other hand, I'd love to see meaningful copyright reform. It's a shame the ridiculous base pandering of the last 12 years or so has so soured my view of the party as a whole.

The Pro-Market (faction of the Republican) Party speaks!

It comes to me as no surprise that Republicans are speaking up on behalf of copyright reform of the sorts most of us who frequent Techdirt have been calling for. There has always been a pro-market faction in the Republican party -- as distinct from the pro-business faction. If you don't understand the difference, read Luigi Zingales' book A Capitalism for the People. What is surprising is that the pro-market faction carried the day in a body that represents the entire House GOP caucus.

Re: Dear Shills

There's a lot to what you say when you show suspicion toward the Republicans when they say they represent "The Public". They've shown and proven repeatedly that their "public" is made up of large corporations and banks. The problems to do with copyrights can't be answered by ideologically oriented people who think only in terms of one group as "the free market". In this Republican paper, that seems to be their professed interest. Yet we know that they even lie about that. When elected representatives choose to protect one segment of the public - corporations, to the detriment of other segments, that's not concern for a "free market".

@100

@ 100 GOP is left ?
i always knew the stat americans were ranked 32nd in math but your proving it is hilarious.

LOOK UP JOE BIDEN...you dumb turd...
remember ten million fewer voted this time for obama and he still won by 3 million + votes. THAT IS NOT VICTORY.
That shows you people have given up....The next step is an actual revolution....

Re: Re: Re: Not Entirely Unpredictable

I think they have already more or less written off Hollywood and and several of the bigger companies living off copyrighted material. The odd thing is that Disney sponsored the republicans in especially Florida significantly to keep out gambling. IIRC Disney is one of the most obnoxiously IP-maximalistic companies in the world so they stand to at least loose out on some funds if they go in this direction.

Please be aware that it is far, far too early to conclude about their future policies. Chances are that they are gonna bin this report under "Very risky" and take other stances.
IIRC statutory damage reforms has been a non-starter for republicans earlier and changing stance on that issue is gonna be a tough sell.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Entirely Unpredictable

Yes, there can be no doubt that the pro-copyright lobbyists are in full alert mode and are conspiring to prevent this from becoming a full-blown political movement. We'll just have to wait and see which politicians are willing to take a stand against this burdensome corporate monopoly of our culture.

The connection between campaign financing and its corrupting effect on the decision making processes of politicians is pretty much undisputed at this point, and there is shitton of money in the petty patent and IP disputes between big name companies for law firms. So, just looking at the surface, there are a few (but crude) connections you might draw from this:
(1) Even the ideologically driven republicans when in the absense of the corrupting influence of the special interest money in a particular industry area will act in the public good in that area--despite the fact that the means to the end is not some free market hand waving but actually a function of government (optimistic)
(2) The republicans see to whom the democrats are indebted and are pressuring them on it (pessimistic)

Interesting

This is indeed a good sign. Even if it is some sort of cynical attempt by Republicans to gain the "youth vote" (which I think is true), the mere fact that copyright reform is being mentioned is a good thing.

The Democrats won the election, in part, because they were seen as more "tech savvy" by younger viewers (which was largely justified). They will not want to do anything to disrupt this perception, especially when the country is so evenly divided.

It's also great to see these truths being mentioned in any sort of official way. Any talk of what rights holders "deserve" to be paid, should be banned from the copyright discussion. Copyright was never about that, it was always about providing an incentive for publication and distribution.

I also like the "graduated" system he has for copyright renewal. I don't think a percentage-of-profits system would work (for purely practical reasons), but something like it is a fine idea. Even if you had to actively renew your copyrights without being charged anything, it would eliminate a whole host of problems (e.g. orphan works). I think the EFF advocated for something similar, but I'm just going by memory here.

p.s. I give this thread about another half hour before Average_Joe (or whichever anonymous coward he is this week) comes here, and starts cherry-picking the slight inaccuracies in the brief, in order to distract from the overall truths in it. (While calling Mike a pirate, even though Techdirt had nothing to do with the brief.)

Re:

"Hollywood and music back Obama heavily. Hollywood depend on Obama administration to prevent further eroding of business models. Republicans attack Hollywood revenue streams. As a unplanned side effect the public wins."

When their business model consists of crying to government to go after their consumers and punish other industries for not putting safeguards in place just to protect their monopoly, I'd say it's time to establish a new business model.

Re: @100

OWS is starting a few projects. If they start to push politically, it may lead to less revolutionist voices. Southern europe is far, far worse off than USA and they haven't gone to real revolution yet (though fascism/racism is growing stronger and more overt in Greece every day). You see a lot of demonstrations, but it is not a revolution yet. So next step is demonstrations. Revolution is still far far away!

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

Believe it or not, most people aren't single issue voters and anything negative over copyright isn't enough to get past how much worse Romney is with foreign affairs, women's rights, and absurd social conservatism in general..

It's time to look at the article for what it is, what it does and what it represents. It's short, clear and to the point, and manages to come in at a scant eight pages. There's no clear author of the paper, but someone or a group of someones who know what they're doing is whispering in the right ears. Does the origin of the document matter in the long run? Hopefully not.

It outlines a position that many readers here agree with as well as problems plaguing the entire economy, so what's next?

Just a suggestion, but honey attracts flies better than vinegar. Congress-critters put up with an astonishing amount of negative feedback via text, email, snail mail, phone calls, messages and so on. I once sent a thank-you letter to a congressman in Virginia and was shocked at the eagerness of his staff to send me materials, the congressional record containing his speech on the floor, and willingness to answer questions. Granted, I wasn't asking him to pursue threatening a lucrative business model, but I *did* get his attention.

It's far easier to stir up anti-SOPA and PIPA storms than it is to rally a wave of support, but this may be very good opportunity. What's more important -- and potentially lucrative in the long run -- a cozy lobbyist job or earning the praise and love of hundreds of thousands of voters? The electorate may be sick of voting for the lesser of two evils and would like to vote *for* an issue.

Any kind of legislation crafted around these excellent points is going to require a lot of push, especially keeping it free of poison pill amendments. I would like to see a bill crafted from this position (are you listening, reps. Issa and Wyden?) and helped to gain positive momentum!

Anyone else see the irony in the Republicans effectively calling copyright, well, communist?

"While those filing a takedown request have to swear on the threat of perjury, that swearing is only in regard to whether the work is theirs but not whether the work is actually infringing. "

You have to be a LITTLE cautious when changing this. Some fair use claims are disputable, and the rights holder should not be sanctioned just becuase they eventually lose on a close fair use call. But for some of the obvious cases, they absolutely should be.

"It goes on to suggest a sliding scale for copyright renewal, after a free initial term of 12 years."

That might actually be a little short, especially for unpublished works. It's conceivable that an author could take more than 12 years to write a book, and it would be silly to have the copyright on the first half of the book expire before it's published (and who would think to register something they are still writing?) Perhaps they could give an extra 12 years for yet-to-be-published material.

For the statutory damages reform - it probably does need reforming, since these days you can buy an individual song instead of a whole album. But also, judges and juries need to recognize that an individual infringing without profiting should only be charged the minimum, and not $5000 per song just because it's somewhere in between what they're allowed. Really, it should be capped at triple the value of the infringed works plus all court costs (the latter being the majority of what most people would actually pay.) Statutory damages can remain for those few cases where it actually IS difficult to determine the value, such as an unpublished work.

Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

"Recently, I've had a chance to read letters from award winning writers and artists whose livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy.

The story is 2 years old. Couldn't you find anything newer to support your view.
Also it doesn't look to me that the pirate ships have been scuttled and the ship of copyright "given a coat of armour plating" as Locke promised.

So thanks for that bit of out-dated empty rhetoric - really relevant..

The Changing Nature of Elections, with the Decline of Television.

The traditional conventional wisdom about political campaigns has been that you raise as much money as you can, and use the money to outbid the other side for a severely limited amount of advertising space in the more or less monopolistic mass media. A correlary is that if you can get people who are themselves newsworthy, such as movie actors, rock stars, fashion models, athletes, etc., or even ad-hoc celebrities such as "Joe-the-Plumber," to endorse you, the mass media will find it very difficult to edit them out. However, with the advent of the internet, mass media is broken (hardly a controversial proposition on Techdirt). Anyone can provide the voter with as much information as the voter is willing to read, or listen to, or watch, as the case may be, and this information can be provided at very little cost. The emphasis has shifted to the "ground game," of actually getting people to go to the polls.

I think Boucher, who worked for Rich Santorum in the primary, is the more perceptive of the two writers. The essential point is that the winner in future elections will be the one which has pushed its cadre organization furthest down towards the people. If someone is willing to be a cadre, say a block warden, he will naturally be willing to write the party a check for a hundred dollars, and spend another hundred dollars on his own incidental expenses (printing handbills, etc.). A party with an effective cadre organization will be awash in money from small donations, and will not have to seek the backing of either movie stars or Las Vegas hotel owners.

There's a catch, of course. The potential cadres get to determine the nature of the party platform, and to choose the candidate, or else they become alienated, and refuse to play. In 2008, the potential Republican cadres wanted Mike Huckabee, and in 2012, they wanted Rick Santorum. Polls suggest that Obama would have beaten Santorum about 65%-35% in the popular vote. McCain and Romney had to freeze out the cadres to keep them from taking control. The most blatant piece of primary election tampering was in Virgina, a state which Obama ultimately won in the general election. Republicans were only allowed to choose between Romney and Ron Paul. The disconnect between the leadership and the potential cadres meant that Romney had to rely on his all-too-fallible central computer system. No power on earth can prevent a cadre from speaking the truth as he understands it. If the honestly-held views of a party's potential cadres are incompatible with a popular majority, then that party will simply have to resign itself to spending a generation in the political wilderness, the way the Republican Party did from 1932 to 1952.

Now, looking at the Democrats, Joe Biden is an old man, who grew up on the mass-media system. He knows how to make snappy remarks once he has a television camera pointed at him, like, say Howard Cosell. On television, he can still use Paul Ryan to wipe the doormat. Barrack Obama is of course a younger man, and was once a community organizer. He understands about cadres-- and he is the boss.

The people who profit from extended copyright no longer have very much to offer politicians. The politicians no longer owe them favors.

I cannot believe they havent said anything about how slow it is.

Copyright takes 3 months in the United States. In Canada it takes a week and in the UK it takes a week. Only upside is that Canada and the UK are a little more expensive then the $35 dollar fee. Artists don't release their stuff for fear of it being taken, ripped off or stolen. Now having a system where the wait time is 3 months no wonder the industry is having problems. When an artist creates a piece of art and is told he cant publish it without copyright and the wait time for copyright is 3 months. The Artist may lose faith or may give up cause in reality whats the point in creating something if it cant be shared or protected the second its created. Please reform the wait time for copyright.

Re: Hope

Changing copyright law to 12 years in the US would be a global event. The global insanity on copyright is driven mostly by Hollywood. Wipe that support out with copyright reform in the US, and the public who protested SOPA, ACTA, etc. around the world would take care of the rest.

Re:

I offer this copyrightable letter into the public domain:

Dear Rep. _______:

On November 16, 2012, the Republican Study Committee released a Policy Brief entitled “Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It.” This is a critical issue to me and millions of voters in my peer group. I am writing to inform you that I fully support the entirety of the policy change proposals put forth in the RSC’s paper, and ask that you introduce and support legislation to implement them.

This hurts my brain! I've gotten so used to being adamantly opposed to everything that comes out of a Republican's mouth that it's hard to readjust my filters when I read something like this and go, "Yeah! There's hope for the future!" More of this, and less theocratic bigotry, and the Repubs might have a chance of winning in the next election cycle.

Re: Re:

Am I Dreaming???

I feel like many others here - I can't believe what I am actually reading (in a good sense).

It's not only sensible in its broad strokes, but they even get on the right track in terms of specific policy solutions such as the increasing graduated scale for copyright renewal term fees. The only change is they should make is that the fee should be the greater of either a percentage of revenue that the copyrighted work generates or fixed amount fee which sustainability increases for each new copyright term (that way, the many creative works that don't generate revenue such as scientific papers, memos and historical documents will also fall into the public domain within a reasonable amount of time).

I'm with Nina Paley here - if the House Republicans actually passed a bill based on these proposals, I'd switch back to being a Republican.

Re: Re:

Copy protection length needs to be shortened period. I'm sick and tired of politicians trying to fix bad laws with more laws. Bad laws need to be removed and we must demand their removal.

We need a legal structure that discourages the maintenance of existing laws so that only worthwhile laws continue. Perhaps a process where laws must periodically be re-approved with a majority vote or something.

Re: Wow, just Wow...

How can Repubs be so wrong on "everything" and "right" on this one item? That leap is too impossible to grasp. Repubs believe in private property rights, which is what copyright is doing. Protecting your property. If you are a creator, you need it.

Corporate grab

This new "attitude" by Repubs is nothing but a clever corporate grab to steal your creative material at a fraction of its value. If you are an individual who creates artistic material for your livelihood, don't you want it protected? It's corporate power and greed you want to rail against, not copyright. Copyright protects the individual from abuse.

Oops. It's Not a RSC Policy Brief.

Apparently this is not a Policy Brief and in fact they have pulled it off their website. here's the email I got from Paul Teller:

We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Shills

karl - sorry, google's fingerprints are all over this, they got some dumb ass resume building republican kid to take the fall on it and are laughing their asses off... not well played. this will haunt the GOP, bet on it.

Re: Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

Re: Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

it's not hard for me to accept that the idiot who wrote the paper is going to have a lot of explaining to do and it's going to be a lot of fun watching you guys explain why you like the smell of your own farts so much, slaptasitc good times.

so what you want me to accept is that a jr republican intern is writing policy direction for the whole party? really? youch... hang on brotha...

Re: Dear Shills

don't what is going to be more funny, that jr hit the send button before dad approved his homework, or that techdirt went spastic with an epic round of fart smelling high fives... uh oh... you guys are priceless, truly priceless and about as out of touch as he GOP itself, have fun with that.

PRICELESS

We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Shills

it just proves you are naive.

It just proves you fell for the ridiculous propaganda pushed by corporate rights holders, that everyone who is a copyright reformer is "bought out" by Google, that Google is "anti-copyright," or what have you. It's a load of bullshit - just as it would be if the accusations were leveled against Yahoo! or Bing or iTunes.

meow...

whoooopsies!

We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday....

Re: Am I Dreaming???

poor justin... I guess you're gonna have to wait - looks like the GOP isn't ready just yet to be the party that hates innovative creators like artists, filmmakers, musicians, photographer, writers and others...

Re: Re:

oh mikey mike... this is what happens you hang out in the back seat too long with er uhm, a friend... you lose perspective and launch a self proclaimed fart smelling marathon before dad had a chance to check juniors homework... how embarrassing...

Update

Contrary to what the trolls are claiming here, it appears the original report was FULLY vetted and approved by the RSC at the highest levels. The reason for the retraction? You guessed it. RIAA and MPAA lobbyists went freaking ballistic and went on an all out blitz today to get the RSC to change its mind.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Shills

I could have a water buffalo in my mouth and STILL come out sounding more coherent than your babbling. But what would you know? You have Lowery's shoes stuck in your mouth all day, and a finger in your ass!

Um...what "evidence" is it, now that the Republicans have pulled the document less than 24 hours after releasing it? They now say that it wasn't adequately reviewed...methinks that the RIAA and MPAA were a wee bit miffed...

If the consumer feels 'entitled' to free content, why should the creator not feel equally 'entitled' to get some remuneration for creating the content, if enough people are enjoying it ?

The point is in the numbers. It used to be the case that the average DIY muso making and distributing their own content (as I have done since 1994) could just about hack a living out of it if they got about 20,000 sales. So a lot of us could dodge out of the major game, make some nice music, and make 20k people happy. And they seemed happy with that, no one then told me 'copyright is theft'.

These days I'd need about 2,000,000 'sales' (streams, whatever) - monthly- to make the same level of paltry, minimum wage, income. It isn't going to happen.

This means I've had to down tools on 'art' music and do TV and film music instead. No, I have neither the time, energy, or money to invest in making 'art' in my spare time. Just so happens I'm too old and been doing this too long to do something else for money either.

So records I 'should' be making aren't getting made. And most 'pros' I know my age (with mortgage, kids) have made the same choice. Art music just isn't paying.

Yes, I know the 'public good' is being served by widespread copyright 'breaking'. You're all getting something for nothing. But you cannot expect that all of us creators can survive financially when you feel entitled to get out work for free. It does have straightforward, financial, effects. For all the 'new models' offered, few of us actually get them to work, and in the meantime some pretty unsavoury people are making a fortune out of illegal downloading.

This is hardly a balanced or ethical result. Creators should get some cash for what we do. Or like me, we may find we no longer have the financial choice to carry on making our art.

Copyright is Property

So, how long will your rights in an asset last? How about we assign 12 years to your ownership of your own home? And thereafter, it becomes anyone's?

Copyright is an asset. I created it, I invested in it and I have rights in it. And you do not. I ought to be able to protect my ownership and use of it in all respects, except within narrow, carefully crafted fair use guidelines that are based on substantial. important and clearly defined public policy goals. Not because you want to post it to youtube for free.

You've got no inherent right to control my property. It's mine. Unless you want me to start taking yours.

Re: Re: Dear Shills

Yeah, umm, I live in Toledo and the Toledo Free Press? Yeah, that's something we wipe our asses with and is given out for free on street corners. Not a worthy publication, and certainly not a believable article from 4 years ago. Find better source material.

Re: I'd switch

I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I have never registered with either party as, even at a young age, I have always been able to tell that either is total bullshit. Vote your mind, not a party ticket, even if that means third or no party candidates, even if they don't win. The more people that figure this out, the faster things will change since the silent majority is neither party.

Re: Copyright is Property

Copyright...

When all you people are banging on about how tough copyright laws are, please remember the following FACTS:-

1. Without Copyright Protection, no one would produce Films, Music, Plays, technological devices, medicine, etc etc etc because without copyright protection, they could not earn a return on their investment in time and money or could not earn a living.

2. Without copyright protection, you would not be able to enjoy the benefits of driving a car, watching a television, go to the cinema, library or museum, no mobile phones etc. etc.

3. If someone creates something or invents something, it is their God Given RIGHT as to whether they decide to share it with the world, some give it away free, some use creative commons and some, like professional photographers, authors, film production companies, music publishers charge a FEE for usage etc because that's how they earn their living -

4. Don't change copyright law because of 'Hollywood' or because of 'Sony' etc, because the changes will apply to EVERYONE which means that INNOVATION will be RESTRICTED as anyone wanting to produce or invent anything will not be able to protect it from being stolen by others for their own financial benefit to the detriment of the creator.

5. Stealing copyright (property) is no different to stealing a car (also property) and it is for this reason that nearly all modernised countries are signed up to the BERNE CONVENTION to protect the rights of the creative industries.

The UK for example is the largest producer of Games for Consoles, PC's, iPhones etc. If copyright protection is relaxed, none of these small companies would exist, they would have never got off the ground.. it is the same reason many US creatives are screaming about potential changes to UK Copyright changes - a campaign I am part of in the UK to prevent.

The advent of the internet has generated a general attitude of 'what's yours is also mine', but if I stole your wallet, your car, your home, you would be the first on the phone to the Police to have me arrested.. well when you steal my images, remove my copyright logo, remove the metadata and make it an 'orphan work' on somewhere like PINTREST, then you are effectively stealing MY WALLET, my ability to pay my mortgage, feed my children, pay my bills.

They ONLY people that think Copyright is a BAD thing are those that do not work in a creative industry and fail to understand how it actually works - you just want everything for free, you want people to work for free whilst you want paying for your own work at the end of each month...

Reality is far away from their minds, demonlee. We have a generation so screen happy that they fail to understand that the Internet is as much part of the real world as anything else- and that what they do there has real consequences beyond some utopian ideal of free everything (as long as it can be digitised. And only those things that can be digitised)

No argument we can raise will get through to them, cos everything we say threatens their free content. Hence all the bullshit that's been spouted about this ever since Napster. Bullshit I never heard before then. Those who know in their hearts that there is, in the end, something iffy here will use every form of justificatory bull to forget that at the end of every free download is an artist not getting paid. They'd rather not think about that, it's easier to say 'you're not a real artist if you do it for money' and think 'that's it, done. Now I can get something for nothing with a clean conscience. If artists don't deserve to get paid, then there's no problem'

We don't do it 'for the money'. But we do need money to do it. And as I pointed out earlier. No money = no time = no music.

Re: Copyright...

Well spoken demonlee. I hope that all those misguided people out there who appear to think that they have a right to the hard work of others for free think long and hard about what the implications are long term. You have nailed it why it is so very important that the copyright of all creators is safeguarded.

Re: Copyright...

Excellent response, Demon. I agree 100%. If we don't own our creative works and are not able to profit from them, it would not be possible to earn a living from our work. What are these people thinking?

Re: keroberos

There is much Congress does not understand. For instance, Boehner has yet to understand that slathering orange tanning lotion on himself whilst drunk makes him look like a drunken orangeman. He also fails to see the nuances the coppertone look leaves him without.

Re: Copyright...

When all you people are banging on about how tough copyright laws are, please remember the following FACTS:-

Ummm. Just because you capitolize the word facts doesn't make them true.

1. Without Copyright Protection, no one would produce Films, Music, Plays, technological devices, medicine, etc etc etc because without copyright protection, they could not earn a return on their investment in time and money or could not earn a living.

This is most certainly not a fact. I would argue that history proves it wrong anyways. Copyright has only been around for 300 years or so. Culture and technological advances have been around for 1000's of years prior to copyright, probably since humankind's inception really.

2. Without copyright protection, you would not be able to enjoy the benefits of driving a car, watching a television, go to the cinema, library or museum, no mobile phones etc. etc.

What are you talking about? You are mixing up a lot of different things here that copyright doesn't even cover. But even so, none of those depend on copyright anyways, except perhaps the movie.

3. If someone creates something or invents something, it is their God Given RIGHT as to whether they decide to share it with the world, some give it away free, some use creative commons and some, like professional photographers, authors, film production companies, music publishers charge a FEE for usage etc because that's how they earn their living -

Here you are mixing up two different things. Yes, everyone has the right to share or not to share their work, of course. Making money from it is not a God-given right though, it's a government given right. Two separate things.

4. Don't change copyright law because of 'Hollywood' or because of 'Sony' etc, because the changes will apply to EVERYONE which means that INNOVATION will be RESTRICTED as anyone wanting to produce or invent anything will not be able to protect it from being stolen by others for their own financial benefit to the detriment of the creator.

I wish to change copyright to make it more balanced. This report is actually a wonderful way to achieve that. The rest of this bullet point is pure unproven FUD.

5. Stealing copyright (property) is no different to stealing a car (also property) and it is for this reason that nearly all modernised countries are signed up to the BERNE CONVENTION to protect the rights of the creative industries.

It's different in the eyes of the law. That's all that really matters.

The UK for example is the largest producer of Games for Consoles, PC's, iPhones etc. If copyright protection is relaxed, none of these small companies would exist, they would have never got off the ground.. it is the same reason many US creatives are screaming about potential changes to UK Copyright changes - a campaign I am part of in the UK to prevent.

Prove this with citations, please. Otherwise this sounds like faith based FUD to me.

The advent of the internet has generated a general attitude of 'what's yours is also mine', but if I stole your wallet, your car, your home, you would be the first on the phone to the Police to have me arrested.. well when you steal my images, remove my copyright logo, remove the metadata and make it an 'orphan work' on somewhere like PINTREST, then you are effectively stealing MY WALLET, my ability to pay my mortgage, feed my children, pay my bills.

Well that is because, traditionally, copyright law has been civil disputes between individuals and never involved the police anyways.

What you seem to be most upset about is that the internet has disrupted the legacy distribution channels for content more than anything else. At least that's my take from your rant. Sorry.

They ONLY people that think Copyright is a BAD thing are those that do not work in a creative industry and fail to understand how it actually works - you just want everything for free, you want people to work for free whilst you want paying for your own work at the end of each month...

I don't think the idea of copyright is bad. I think it has been tilted too far in the wrong direction and needs to be more balanced.

Re:

No argument we can raise will get through to them, cos everything we say threatens their free content.

Tom, did you even read the report that this article pertains to? It's not about free content at all.

The limits the report suggests would mean it would be exactly the same as it is now for the first 12 years. After that you could still retain your copyright, you would just have to pay for it at that point. The public domain would begin to be replenished again with a system like this, instead of our culture rotting on basement shelves like it is now.

Re: Re: Copyright...

Gwiz..

I capitalised the word 'FACTS' because that is what they are and may I politely suggest some bedtime reading on the history of 'copyright' & 'patents', why it was needed and why it is still needed now and contrary to your comments, it has not been tilted to far in the wrong direction, it has not changed at all hardly since it was first introduced.

Yes, copyright law needs updating to take account of the changing 'digital world', however this is so the digital world can be included and not the whole law ripped up and re-written to suit those who wish everything on the net and everywhere else to be free...!

When you refer to 1,000's of years ago - how long ago do you mean? Human Beings have only been around for about 200K years and let's be honest, it was really only when the Industrial Revolution started that 'money' really came into it's own, when 'inventions' were coming thick and fast and being 'stolen' that copyright and patents became so important.. Edison did not invent the Light Bulb, patents had been registered long before, but he and his team created one for general use after studying these patents and he designed the electrical system to run it... but let's not let a myth get in the way of the truth eh?

A company can only exist if it makes money - they use staff, often called 'employees' and these employees want wages and want them to increase every year, they want pension funds, holidays, perks, etc. - so, if the company cannot protect it's products with 'copyright' and 'patents', how is it going to provide all the things it's 'employees' expect? People will not work for 'fresh air and windy pie', they like to be paid in hard cash as I am confident you do as well.

I can't speak for U.S. Law, but in the U.K., Copyright Theft is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE - that doesn't mean you can be arrested, but you can be served a summons to appear in Court and not just a 'civil' court.

Again, I cannot speak for U.S. Law, but in the UK, under the Theft Act of 1975, you commit the act of 'Theft' by taking something belonging to another party with the intent of depriving them of that 'something'. Theft is theft and a person stealing a paper clip from their employer or a car from their next door neighbour is exactly the same, it is theft - they are a 'thief' and theft from employers costs billions around the world, pushing up the cost of products and services to everyone. The cost to U.S. Industries alone is expected to be around $50 Billion a year (http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Di-Eq/Employee-Theft.html)

I am not upset about the Internet, I get upset by the misconception that peoples beliefs that if it is on the internet, it's free - when clearly, that is not the case and that is why people want changes to copyright law, because they want free music, free films, free games, free images... the list goes on and on.

I don't care if the music industry stops making CD's and wants me to download, I just don't expect it for FREE!

So please, when you have worked in a 'creative' industry as long as I have, when you have seen what damage has been done to two of the industries I work in from copyright theft, then come back and have a sensible conversion...

Re:

The limits the report suggests would mean it would be exactly the same as it is now for the first 12 years. After that you could still retain your copyright, you would just have to pay for it at that point. The public domain would begin to be replenished again with a system like this, instead of our culture rotting on basement shelves like it is now.

So, I create something and then every 12yrs I have to pay to keep what I created - please, listen to yourself, that is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard in relation to copyright...

In fact, if people keep stealing copyrighted items, it might even be feasible, some creative might just be able to afford to pay it...

Meanwhile, the 2.5M images I have in my archives will remain my property for 70yrs after my death and will be held by my descendants. It is MY choice or my descendants choice if they are made public, not yours, not the governments and not anyone elses...

Re: Re: Re: Copyright...

When penalties for copyright infringement start making sense, when you actually catch the real infringers instead of the incredible extent of collateral damage you inflict in enforcement... get back to us.

Otherwise, you're talking bullshit.

By the way, we're frequently told that entertainment industries - music, movies and games - are recession proof. This is boasted by industry representatives consistently, annually, and my lecturers are pointing out the same thing. If downloading is killing the industry it's doing a horrible job of it.

Re: Copyright...

I really don't like the whole "If someone stole your [physical object]..." argument at all.
If someone took my house and left me without a house, I'd be upset.
If someone made a copy of my house as easily as someone makes a copy of a music file on a computer, I wouldn't even be miffed.

Re: Re: Re: Copyright...

I can't speak for U.S. Law, but in the U.K.,....

This report, this article and this whole discussion is about US copyright where our legal system has two completely different words, infringement and theft to describe a copyright violation and the taking of another's possession, respectively.

Re: Re:

Meanwhile, the 2.5M images I have in my archives will remain my property for 70yrs after my death and will be held by my descendants. It is MY choice or my descendants choice if they are made public, not yours, not the governments and not anyone elses...

How does whether copyright exists or not change that choice? You can keep them locked up to your little heart's content without copyright just the same.

Re: Re: Re: Copyright...

I capitalised the word 'FACTS' because that is what they are and may I politely suggest some bedtime reading on the history of 'copyright' & 'patents', why it was needed and why it is still needed now and contrary to your comments, it has not been tilted to far in the wrong direction, it has not changed at all hardly since it was first introduced.

We are talking about US copyright reform on this article, not patents, please stop conflating them.

When you refer to 1,000's of years ago - how long ago do you mean? Human Beings have only been around for about 200K years and let's be honest, it was really only when the Industrial Revolution started that 'money' really came into it's own, when 'inventions' were coming thick and fast and being 'stolen' that copyright and patents became so important.. Edison did not invent the Light Bulb, patents had been registered long before, but he and his team created one for general use after studying these patents and he designed the electrical system to run it... but let's not let a myth get in the way of the truth eh?

Once again, you are conflating them. Patent reform is a completely different can of worms here in the US. Stick to copyright, please. This report doesn't deal with patent reform at all.

A company can only exist if it makes money - they use staff, often called 'employees' and these employees want wages and want them to increase every year, they want pension funds, holidays, perks, etc. - so, if the company cannot protect it's products with 'copyright' and 'patents', how is it going to provide all the things it's 'employees' expect? People will not work for 'fresh air and windy pie', they like to be paid in hard cash as I am confident you do as well.

Thanks for the Business 101 primer, there. But, in reality, companies who need to rely on IP protection to survive are usually at the end of their innovation lifespan anyways, so I'm not convinced it's really the best idea to support the legacy businesses over the ones who are actually innovating.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright...

The real infringers, you mean the people stealing Films, Books, Music, Images, Games etc?

If you can't accept the fine, don't do the crime...

Collateral damage, the unseen damage for example on a Film is that 1,000's are not made on large budgets by large corporations and many of the crew work for expenses plus 'points' on sales - every time it is pirated, illegally downloaded, it is the crew you are stealing money from, not some large faceless company..

Re: Re: Re:

Please read your copyright law before posting....

§ 302 . Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 19784

(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

(b) Joint Works. — In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author's death.

(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire. — In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Any person having an interest in the copyright in an anonymous or pseudonymous work may at any time record, in records to be maintained by the Copyright Office for that purpose, a statement identifying one or more authors of the work; the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person's interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright...

This is just one example that proves you statement that "[copyright] has not been tilted to far in the wrong direction, it has not changed at all hardly since it was first introduced." to be incorrect.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Please read your copyright law before posting....

I'm aware of current copyright laws in the US, thank you very much.

I was pointing out that copyright term lengths in the US started out very close to the lengths in this report, which would obviously not make it "the most ridiculous idea [they] have ever heard in relation to copyright" to anyone besides you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright...

Right. Which refers to copyright violations as "infringements" and never as "theft" or "larceny". They are different crimes covered by different laws.

This is U.S. Organisations complaining about potential changes to our copyright laws...

And we also have huge multinational companies lobbying for laws here too. Not sure how that makes UK law any more relevant when discussing a report from the US House Republicans concerning US copyright laws.

Re: Re:

I did, thanks- and trying to say 'this isn't about free content' is disingenuous. Of course it is- all discussions about copyright these days have, at their base, the 'elephant in the room' that is free/illegal downloading. The perception is that 'copyright is broken' , on both sides. On one side, we have those who insist that 'innovation' (ie, free content and the plagiarism of other works- so called 'remix culture') should trump the rights of creators, and on the other, creators who are just trying to feed their families.

Why should I pay to maintain what is mine, after 12 years ? And just what is this culture that's rotting in basements ? Just about every song I can think of is now freely available on YouTube and elsewhere. There's more content, freely available, old and new, than there has ever been. Consumers, mostly, get away with getting hold of it for free with very few ever getting into any trouble for doing it.

There's nothing wrong with existing copyright laws. And as they are universally flouted every where anyway, there's little argument for changing them. Those who demand change are usually after the legalisation of what they're doing anyway.

Re: Re: Re:

Why should I pay to maintain what is mine, after 12 years ?

Because it restores balance to copyright. As it stands now nothing is entering the public domain. It is rotting in basements because even if the rightsholder cannot be found it is still under copyright. We have already lost a ton of film this way because it has deteriorated beyond repair in now defunct studio's basements.

The idea of having to register and renew your copyright is not a new one. It is how the first copyright laws in the US were based. Automatic registration of copyright didn't happen until the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect.

There's nothing wrong with existing copyright laws. And as they are universally flouted every where anyway, there's little argument for changing them. Those who demand change are usually after the legalisation of what they're doing anyway.

You seem to forget that copyright is a deal between the creators and the public. It's not a gift to the creators at all. The public gives the creators a limited monopoly on the distribution of their works in exchange for more works. But due to the ever increasing scope and duration of copyright, I'd argue that the creators have reneged on their part of the deal.

If you want more people to respect copyright, then you must make concessions towards making copyright more fair.

A wide interpretation of fair use would harm most artists.

The only artists who would benefit from reduced statutory damages and a wide interpretation of fair use (which is a defense) would be artists like Richard Prince and Shepard Fairey. Those who don't rely on appropriation would be at risk of the likes of Prince and Fairey exploiting the reform you speak of in order to make millions on the hard work of others. They already do that now... but with current copyright law they can at least be challenged. If the reform you speak of became the standard... my bet is that the majority of artists would be less likely to share their artwork online.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Shills

Re: A wide interpretation of fair use would harm most artists.

If the reform you speak of became the standard... my bet is that the majority of artists would be less likely to share their artwork online.

Please explain how a "remix" of an original piece diminishes the market for the original? In most cases it creates a larger market for the original. How exactly is that "exploiting" anyone, it sounds like it actually adds additional benefit to the original creator to me.

By all means, if you can actually catch the right people you might have some degree of credibility. The track record of your beloved enforcers is atrocious and horrendous.

The fact remains that a ton of money is made by the relevant industries; something that they regularly boast in order to assert the leverage they have over politics. If the industry is raking in that much money and you can still complain about individual crew members, policy of how those people are paid is to blame. Again, if piracy is killing these industries, it's doing a horrible job. We've been told that since the advent of home taping, which apparently kills the music industry.

Re: Copyright is Property

just the fact that you are completely incapable of passing the "ideas are not property / copying is not stealing / non physical does not equal physical" test pretty much shows that you aren't even worth considering

Re: Copyright...

They ONLY people that think Copyright is a BAD thing are those that do not work in a creative industry and fail to understand how it actually works - you just want everything for free, you want people to work for free whilst you want paying for your own work at the end of each month...

i don't want things to be free, *I* want to -BE- free, i want to be able to put my non-commercial mod or video using the assests i want to use without having to live in FEAR of having it taken down or my ass sued because some control-freak copymonger wants to tell me what to do, OR without being attacked by psychopathic artists who support those control freaks

no i don't work in the creative "industry" and i don't give a fuck about it, you know why? because it's a looney bin full of backasswards delusional fucks such yourself, infact i hope the creative industry as we know it dies tomorrow taking the MAFIAA and all of it's supporting fanatic artists with it

maybe getting rid of you will make the world a less insane, slightly smarter place

Re: Re:

that is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard in relation to copyright...

hey i gotta great idea for copyright, we put it in a rocket and shoot it into the sun

no, wait, that would be the best idea in relation to copyright, my bad

ok, what we do is delete the internet, force-install microchips on everybody that constantly scans their minds for anything infringing, if they think of something without permission they must pay up, oh and those same microchips force them to listen to/watch the lastest MAFIAA content with a million warning screens and ads. And they can't turn it off 'till they die

there, now you've just heard the most ridiculous idea ever in relation to copyright

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you want more people to respect copyright, then you must make concessions towards making copyright more fair.

in other words: if you want respect you have to give respect

copyright is probably one of the most disrespectful, one-sided things around, so it's less that we're just "freetards" wanting to steal your monies, and more we're peasants who are getting tired of being told what to do by royalty

Re: Re: A wide interpretation of fair use would harm most artists.

not just remixes but also the original work itself

i have so many songs that are practically unheard of and stay unheard of because everytime someone tries to upload them they get removed yet the label that controls them does absolutely nothing with them (including have them on itunes they stupidly removed the music from there also) except stop people from sharing them, how is anybody supposed to buy what you make if they can't FIND it?

a couple i have learned i am one of the few people on earth who still has them, but i'm to scared to try and promote them, because the more attention they get, the higher the chances i might lose my account(s) including my legal content and/or face possible fines

i still do try to share them but since most people don't know about them there is less demand, thus, less chances to keep it going, so they mostly sit and rot in a folder like so many orphans works

shutup

Re: shutup

The usual abuse .

Anonymous coward wrote ;
"no i don't work in the creative "industry" and i don't give a fuck about it, you know why? because it's a looney bin full of backasswards delusional fucks such yourself, infact i hope the creative industry as we know it dies tomorrow taking the MAFIAA and all of it's supporting fanatic artists with it"
This is a fantastic quote . Can't wait to use it when showing the creative industry the sort of characters they are up against when they try to present reasoned argument for copyright . Nothing quite beats apathy , hatred , lack of logic and lack of knowledge when it comes to winning people over, does it Mr C ?

Re: The usual abuse .

This is a fantastic quote . Can't wait to use it when showing the creative industry the sort of characters they are up against when they try to present reasoned argument for copyright . Nothing quite beats apathy , hatred , lack of logic and lack of knowledge when it comes to winning people over, does it Mr C ?

So what? There are plenty of abusive commenters on your side of this debate too (actually, take a long look through Techdirt's archives and the majority of the abusive, nasty, uninformed comments come from your side of the fence, really).

But, still, it proves nothing, except that the copyright debate is starting to involve ordinary everyday people because copyright is now affecting ordinary everyday activities.

Re: Re: The usual abuse .

"But, still, it proves nothing, except that the copyright debate is starting to involve ordinary everyday people because copyright is now affecting ordinary everyday activities."

It certainly is . The want everything for nothing brigade wish to undermine a principle that keeps the food on the table for this ordinary person's wife and two kids . BTW , this ordinary person also pays taxes that support public services . Anybody who does the proper research will find that although relaxing copyright is seen as some form of citizens' crusade , the real benefactors are the large internet and media corporations that want free content to fuel their businesses . Most of these corporations have very esoteric tax plans in place to avoid but not evade payment . They get the bucks , we lose the doctors and nurses .

All I can say to your wish that the creative industry as we know it dies tomorrow , be very very careful what you wish for . The legislation of intellectual property is the driving force for a lot more than music , film and photography.
But then again I suspect that a "backasswards delusional fuck" such as myself will be wasting my time trying to convince you of that .

Re: Re: Re: The usual abuse .

You misconstrue my intentions. I do not wish for free content. I pay for what I consume. I also pay taxes.

Nor do I wish for the total abolishment of copyright. My desire is for a more balanced copyright system that insures there will remain cultural access for my grandchildren and their children into the future.

As for you alluding that the creative industry will die without the legislation of intellectual property all I can say is how many times will the creative industry claim the sky is falling? Cassette tapes didn't kill the music industry. The VCR didn't kill the movie industry, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Re: Re: The usual abuse .

" if you need to resort to ad hominems in order to a bring a compelling argument to your peers, you may have already lost the war."

Dictionary definition of "ad hominems " is "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

Statement from anonymous coward :

"it's a looney bin full of backasswards delusional fucks such yourself, infact i hope the creative industry as we know it dies tomorrow taking the MAFIAA and all of it's supporting fanatic artists with it"

Re: Re: Re: The usual abuse .

Re: Re: Re: The usual abuse .

The want everything for nothing brigade wish to undermine a principle that keeps the food on the table for this ordinary person's wife and two kids

I would like to add that I also to work in a creative field to support my family. I am a Graphic Artist for a sign company. Fortunately, I work in an industry that is more concerned with actually delivering a product (signs) as opposed to locking up the IP we create for our customers.

In Harper & Row v. The Nation (1985), Justice Sandra Day O'Connor quoted a prior case which stated, ''If every volume that was in the public interest could be pirated away by a competing publisher . . . the public [soon] would have nothing worth reading.''

Said another way, who's going to take the time to think through, write down and then publish something societally valuable if society says that original thought has no value?

Re:

Said another way, who's going to take the time to think through, write down and then publish something societally valuable if society says that original thought has no value?

Wait. How did you get that from that quote? If the original thought had no value, why would a competing publisher want to publish it?

Besides, this report is about copyright reform, not the abolishment of copyright anyways. Not sure how you made the leap to "having no value" from there. It's more along the lines of society not putting as much value on your creations as you do and is rethinking the whole copyright for life + 70 years thing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The usual abuse .

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The usual abuse .

Exactly . My work here is obviously done !

No not really. Where have I attacked your character? Or even been remotely been rude to you?

Seriously, this is stupid game you are playing here. Take a look at this entire comment thread and tell me truthfully that every single comment here that is pro-copyright echos your sentiments exactly. Unless you willing to claim responsibility for every single one of those, you really need to let this go.

In an Ayn Rand Republican world, there is no incentive to innovate or create if the innovation or creation can be immediately freely used. Weakening copyright laws is a disincentive to creation. Going along with the "everything should be freely shared without compensation" mentality seems rather leftist.

There is quote from TIGA's CEO Dr. Richard Wilson on the survey press release:

"The games industry is changing at a rapid rate but the issue of copyright remains important. In particular, IP ownership can be crucial to building a sustainable games business. I hope that all developers and digital publishers will complete the TIGA survey on copyright issues so that TIGA can represent the industry’s views effectively on this important subject." emphasis mine

I would be very interested in seeing the data he is basing that statement on. From what I have read in other places, I'm not convinced that IP ownership is as crucial as he implies.

copyright changes

The fact I can register my copyright and CONTROL who uses it is something I do not want to lose or have restricted. I would NEVER allow use of my work for the promotion or sale of Tobacco products or of Religion. Making the term shorter means I can't control the use of my efforts.

Re:

Weakening copyright laws is a disincentive to creation.

Could you please back this statement with some actual hard facts? I would love to see them, I have been looking for hard evidence of this for awhile. Until you do, I will have remain skeptical that such an assertion contains even a glimmer of truth.

Besides, history seems to disprove this anyways. Thousands of years of creative endeavors and copyright has only existed for 300 years or so.

Re: copyright changes

The fact I can register my copyright and CONTROL who uses it is something I do not want to lose or have restricted. I would NEVER allow use of my work for the promotion or sale of Tobacco products or of Religion. Making the term shorter means I can't control the use of my efforts.

So for you it's about the "control" more than anything else.

It's refreshing to see someone who seems to be on the copyright maximist side of this argument actually admit this. It's a bit a of rare honesty.

I would venture a guess that you regard your creations as your children too. Well let me give you some advice as a father and a grandfather: your children will never reach their true potential until you send them off into the world to stand on their own.

Re: Re: copyright changes

"I would like to add that I also to work in a creative field to support my family. I am a Graphic Artist for a sign company. Fortunately, I work in an industry that is more concerned with actually delivering a product (signs) as opposed to locking up the IP we create for our customers."

I have worked as a commercial photographer for over forty years . Because of the nature of my work I do have to be able to contro limage usage . The service I provide produces unique images for commissioning clients . If they don't have the exclusive use of those images , they will not commission the work . It's no different than being a car manufacturer . In the usual circumstances in our present society , individuals don't buy cars in order to park them on the road leaving the keys in for anybody to use . It really is no more complicated than that .

You also wrote :

"So for you it's about the "control" more than anything else.

It's refreshing to see someone who seems to be on the copyright maximist side of this argument actually admit this. It's a bit a of rare honesty."

I think maybe that in your passion for a little more liberalisation of copyright , you may be a little heavy handed here . Control of images is a lot more important than many realise . It isn't just to do with intellectual property and monetary gain . There is something called a moral right that is at present granted under the Berne convention. Moral rights allow the creator of an image to restrict its use to areas that they feel morally correct , and to forbid their use in areas they find morally repugnant . If anybody should care to look at proposed "orphan works " legislation in the USA and the UK , they may be surprised to find that should such legislation be passed in its present form , they may very well find that their moral rights will be breached . It will enable photographs of themselves and their family , including children , to be used by unknown third parties to promote causes and they may well find morally repugnant . The only compensation due will be a fee set by a body that will value the use of that image along the same lines as any photo library image. And that's only if the author of the image finds out .

It's one of the reasons that I advised "anonymous coward " to be careful of what is wished for .

"Nor do I wish for the total abolishment of copyright. My desire is for a more balanced copyright system that insures there will remain cultural access for my grandchildren and their children into the future."

I , believe it or not , along with you , think that there is a good case for cultural access and use of images . It's just that if one carefully looks at proposed legislation , this argument is being used in a somewhat disingenuous way by the powers that be . It's a trojan horse that could be of great use by the corporations that want free content in order to drive traffic and thus increase advertising revenue .

From infringement to censorship...

Where can we download this paper... seems the government is also OK with censorship, since we can no longer see this document.

Didn't we PAY for this document, oh the corruption of the ideals that we stand for..

If they put everyone on welfare then they can control us all... everything should be free, except that which allows their buddies to fund their own space programs... their same buddies who have torpedoed our economy... yeah, give them long range missiles paid for by taxpayers... not that they are terrorists - or are they...

Re: Re: Re: copyright changes

I have worked as a commercial photographer for over forty years . Because of the nature of my work I do have to be able to contro limage usage . The service I provide produces unique images for commissioning clients . If they don't have the exclusive use of those images , they will not commission the work . It's no different than being a car manufacturer . In the usual circumstances in our present society , individuals don't buy cars in order to park them on the road leaving the keys in for anybody to use . It really is no more complicated than that.

Since you are photographer I can understand your dependence on copyright to some degree. Your natural monopoly has been severely disrupted by technological advances. Everyone now carries a high resolution digital camera in their pockets and developing a photograph can be accolompished with a push of a button. But, disruption does happen and it almost always advance humankind for the better. I once had a career drawing engineering blueprints by hand until it was disrupted by PC's and AutoCAD.

I think maybe that in your passion for a little more liberalisation of copyright , you may be a little heavy handed here . Control of images is a lot more important than many realise . It isn't just to do with intellectual property and monetary gain . There is something called a moral right that is at present granted under the Berne convention. Moral rights allow the creator of an image to restrict its use to areas that they feel morally correct , and to forbid their use in areas they find morally repugnant . If anybody should care to look at proposed "orphan works " legislation in the USA and the UK , they may be surprised to find that should such legislation be passed in its present form , they may very well find that their moral rights will be breached . It will enable photographs of themselves and their family , including children , to be used by unknown third parties to promote causes and they may well find morally repugnant . The only compensation due will be a fee set by a body that will value the use of that image along the same lines as any photo library image. And that's only if the author of the image finds out.

Ok. You are talking about "moral rights". I know that moral rights are a part of copyright in other countries, but not so much in the US. US copyright tends to stick to economic rights. Now there is one bit codified in copyright law that states:

"The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work"

But even so that can be countered with a "Fair Use" defense and still found to be completely legal.

Now when the US signed the Berne Convention we kind of pulled a fast one on the rest of the world by saying the the "moral rights" were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel and by the Lanham Act. The thing is, if all US copyright laws were completely reversed tomorrow, those laws would still exist. They are separate from our copyright laws.

I , believe it or not , along with you , think that there is a good case for cultural access and use of images . It's just that if one carefully looks at proposed legislation , this argument is being used in a somewhat disingenuous way by the powers that be . It's a trojan horse that could be of great use by the corporations that want free content in order to drive traffic and thus increase advertising revenue.

Oh I am completely aware of how corporations can and will abuse copyright laws, whether they are screwing over the creator or the consumer. But, you must also be aware of how much control copyright gives an individual, because in the US we have (stupidly IMHO) started to declare corporations to be on an even keel as individuals.

Re: Re: Re: copyright changes

It will enable photographs of themselves and their family , including children , to be used by unknown third parties to promote causes and they may well find morally repugnant .

I want to mention something about this in particular. In the US (I'm not really sure of other country's laws) the subject of a photograph really has no rights at all concerning the photo. The copyright is granted to the photographer only.

Now we do have state level laws and existing caselaw that supports the idea of "publicity rights". But, once again if US Federal copyright law disappeared tomorrow, those laws would still exist. But, the one thing that has been more or less upheld with our publicity rights case rulings is that if you are any sort of public figure, you cannot reasonably expect any sort of "publicity rights" over your image.

And I want to point out that the Republican Study Committee "is an independent research arm for Republicans" and not a government entity. So while this may be considered to be censorship, it's not government censorship.

Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright changes

Gwiz wrote :

"Your natural monopoly has been severely disrupted by technological advances. Everyone now carries a high resolution digital camera in their pockets and developing a photograph can be accolompished with a push of a button. But, disruption does happen and it almost always advance humankind for the better. I once had a career drawing engineering blueprints by hand until it was disrupted by PC's and AutoCAD."

Sorry , but in my instance this is not the case . I was a very early adopter of digital imaging and far from disrupting my business , it has strengthened it . The niche markets that I operate in though do not depend solely on technology . They are not threatened by the automation of previously hard earned skillsets . High end commercial photography does not solely consist of image capture . It is a complex collaborative process at times involving many individuals with many diverse talents ( set designers , home economists , model makers , stylists , hair and makeup artists , location finders etc ) To my knowledge there is no app that has yet replaced the ability to coordinate and direct such a team in such a way as to produce a result that is worthy of every commission .

"But even so that can be countered with a "Fair Use" defense and still found to be completely legal."

Only in some cases . There have been many high visibility legal casualties in the USA where plagiarists have attempted to use this defence and have been found wanting . Given the hefty legal fees and settlements in the US , I certainly wouldn't be taking that risk

"Now when the US signed the Berne Convention we kind of pulled a fast one on the rest of the world by saying the the "moral rights" were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel and by the Lanham Act. The thing is, if all US copyright laws were completely reversed tomorrow, those laws would still exist. They are separate from our copyright laws."

But that's a US only solution , and the problem we have is a global one .

"In the US (I'm not really sure of other country's laws) the subject of a photograph really has no rights at all concerning the photo. The copyright is granted to the photographer only."

It is only photographers to which I refer , not the right of the subject in the image . I believe though that in France there is legislation on the latter .

Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright changes

Gwiz wrote :

"Your natural monopoly has been severely disrupted by technological advances. Everyone now carries a high resolution digital camera in their pockets and developing a photograph can be accolompished with a push of a button. But, disruption does happen and it almost always advance humankind for the better. I once had a career drawing engineering blueprints by hand until it was disrupted by PC's and AutoCAD."

Sorry , but in my instance this is not the case . I was a very early adopter of digital imaging and far from disrupting my business , it has strengthened it . The niche markets that I operate in though do not depend solely on technology . They are not threatened by the automation of previously hard earned skillsets . High end commercial photography does not solely consist of image capture . It is a complex collaborative process at times involving many individuals with many diverse talents ( set designers , home economists , model makers , stylists , hair and makeup artists , location finders etc ) To my knowledge there is no app that has yet replaced the ability to coordinate and direct such a team in such a way as to produce a result that is worthy of every commission .

"But even so that can be countered with a "Fair Use" defense and still found to be completely legal."

Only in some cases . There have been many high visibility legal casualties in the USA where plagiarists have attempted to use this defence and have been found wanting . Given the hefty legal fees and settlements in the US , I certainly wouldn't be taking that risk

"Now when the US signed the Berne Convention we kind of pulled a fast one on the rest of the world by saying the the "moral rights" were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel and by the Lanham Act. The thing is, if all US copyright laws were completely reversed tomorrow, those laws would still exist. They are separate from our copyright laws."

But that's a US only solution , and the problem we have is a global one .

"In the US (I'm not really sure of other country's laws) the subject of a photograph really has no rights at all concerning the photo. The copyright is granted to the photographer only."

It is only photographers to which I refer , not the right of the subject in the image . I believe though that in France there is legislation on the latter .

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright changes

Sorry , but in my instance this is not the case . I was a very early adopter of digital imaging and far from disrupting my business , it has strengthened it . The niche markets that I operate in though do not depend solely on technology . They are not threatened by the automation of previously hard earned skillsets .

To be honest, it doesn't sound like copyright is really all that important to your livelihood at all. It seems like you have mastered "selling the scarce" (your talents and resources) over "selling the abundant" (digital copies). (This is something that is discussed at Techdirt regularly).
Would the market for your talents actually be diminished if copyright was removed from the equation?

Only in some cases . There have been many high visibility legal casualties in the USA where plagiarists have attempted to use this defence and have been found wanting . Given the hefty legal fees and settlements in the US , I certainly wouldn't be taking that risk

Yes. Fair Use is only a defense to copyright infringement and it doesn't necessarily mean you will win.

But that's a US only solution , and the problem we have is a global one .

Yes, it is a global issue and we must keep that in mind. But copyright laws are country specific and the changes will have come at that level.

It is only photographers to which I refer , not the right of the subject in the image . I believe though that in France there is legislation on the latter.

Yes, I believe that EU copyright laws contain a lot more concerning moral rights and publicity rights than US law.

BTW , nice to know we both know where the devil lives :-)

And I have enjoyed our discussion here. If I came off a bit rash in the beginning, I apologize, it's because I tend to get little annoyed when someone (not really you, but a few of the other later comments on this page) spews out misinformation, no matter how flowery the rhetoric may be. I also tend to get a bit annoyed when my arguments are disregarded because someone else who is perceived to be on my side cannot debate in a civil manner.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright changes

I also apologise for my original demeanour . It's always difficult to gauge text rather than speech , especially when one feels so strongly about a subject . I too have enjoyed the debate , and have seen the common ground on cultural issues .Lets hope that there a wiorkable compromise for all of us in the future .

Re: Re: Re: Re: The usual abuse .

There IS more access to culture today; instead of paying an over priced amount for stuff like in the past due to no other choices, there are now PLENTY of legal sources where you can download that song for a buck or rent a digital movie for a few bucks. But that requires people to actually PAY for what they want...something my generation seems to be against doing even though they would NEVER work for free.

12 years is NOT balanced either...people will just wait for new stuff to become free! 28 years with the option to renew for another 28, (max of 56 years of course) while providing the choice to an author to dedicate the work to the PD during any point in the 1-2 terms if it is no longer economically viable (or if they choose to donate it) is a more fair choice. Since big corporations have the HUGE advantage of having practically endless budgets, perhaps it would level the playing field to only give them one 28 year term.